8 hours ago, BoBo said:

Saints weren’t ‘off’ either, they’ve just been mauled.

It's not coincidental that both Melbourne and St Kilda looked exhausted from the first quarter of their third match after consecutive 6 and 5 day gaps.

That's accumulative fatigue playing out right there.

Not heart, not effort, not game plan, not coaching, not personnel.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yep the Saints had 3 games in 11 days while we had 3 in 13.

For Melbourne supporters solely or mostly blaming our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane, then I think it’s more than fair that those same supporters absolutely excuse St Kilda’s performance last night.

The AFL just needs to get better than this. It’s a real reason why teams just can’t get up for a game. It’s not a good advertisement for The game watching 2 completely one sided games last 2 Thursdays that really should have been neck and neck talent wise. 

32 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

The AFL just needs to get better than this. It’s a real reason why teams just can’t get up for a game. It’s not a good advertisement for The game watching 2 completely one sided games last 2 Thursdays that really should have been neck and neck talent wise. 

It’s almost as if The AFL as an entity can’t see/refuse to see the link between player health and thus the best exponent of their ‘product’ in display. Or at least are happy to wear the cost of disregarding it in favour of tv rights 🤑.

I’ll never forget Andrew Dimitrous condescending comments around High Performance Managers being ‘phys-Eders’ in the public domain. Granted that comment was about other happenings in another context, but I wonder whether it’s a pervasive way of thinking, detached from the the realities of the game 

Edited April 18, 20241 yr by Engorged Onion

 

ross the boss' opening line in the presser last nite: "that wasn't us"

oi! stop stealing goody's material!!

my saints supporting mate told me last night about 5pm they were coming off a 5 day break and 3 games in 11 days.

i immediately changed my tip to the doggies.

what a joke that is.

Afl are shafting clubs to achieve their gather round circus, saints 2 back to back road trips with 5 day breaks! Same with us and why wasn’t our bye last week?? Or at least play sat night as mcg was empty yet GC v Hawks was on?? Same with the saints could have played on Sat or Sunday 

3 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yep the Saints had 3 games in 11 days while we had 3 in 13.

For Melbourne supporters solely or mostly blaming our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane, then I think it’s more than fair that those same supporters absolutely excuse St Kilda’s performance last night.

But 3 in 13 is one game almost every 7 days, which is the norm. I just don't see how one less day over two weeks results in what we saw on the park that night. 3 games in 11 is entirely another matter though. I know people want to find an excuse for our capitulation against the Lions that gives them some hope that the performance is outlier, but fatigue wasn't the sole and overriding factor IMO. 

The AFL will weigh up the pros and cons of these 5 day breaks (3 games in 11 days!!). The AFL will balance the public's loss of interest in one-sided matches and the commercial loss that that causes  against  whatever commerical advantage the short breaks bring (Thurs night/Gather/whatever).  And then make a decision whether to continue it.  

What they won't do is consider making a fair competition.

1 minute ago, sue said:

The AFL will weigh up the pros and cons of these 5 day breaks (3 games in 11 days!!). The AFL will balance the public's loss of interest in one-sided matches and the commercial loss that that causes  against  whatever commerical advantage the short breaks bring (Thurs night/Gather/whatever).  And then make a decision whether to continue it.  

What they won't do is consider making a fair competition.

Plus it’s a good way of applying a handicap. Seems like we are the only team amongst the top ranked who get 2 of them.

surprised Carlton got 1 

12 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

True.

What’s interesting is 3-letter surnames seem to be the ones that commentators don’t feel the need to include their first names. Eg: Cox, Ash, Yeo, Day.

Unrelated: it’s gonna be a looooong six days. 😁

Beg to differ @WalkingCivilWar. Cox is always known as Big Cox. As in, "the Eagles have Big Cox".

Dogs looked the goods last night. It's almost as if they were given a sign that 4 tall forwards is too many. 

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

But 3 in 13 is one game almost every 7 days, which is the norm. I just don't see how one less day over two weeks results in what we saw on the park that night. 3 games in 11 is entirely another matter though. I know people want to find an excuse for our capitulation against the Lions that gives them some hope that the performance is outlier, but fatigue wasn't the sole and overriding factor IMO. 

I went to a Catholic college for nine years - so maths isn't my strong suit. I checked my abacus and it reports that 3 into 13 is 4.3 recurring. Is there a prodo that can confirm this please?

17 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

They did this with Easton Wood. They never called him ‘Wood,’ It was always ‘Easton Wood.’

I live in a rural town in NSW, just east of Canberra. Nobody ever calls me Easton Queanbeyan Demon @WalkingCivilWar.

Edited April 19, 20241 yr by Queanbeyan Demon

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I went to a Catholic college for nine years - so maths isn't my strong suit. I checked my abacus and it reports that 3 into 13 is 4.3 recurring. Is there a prodo that can confirm this please?

Cant figure out if you are taking the [censored]. But to simplify this for all those concerned, if a team was to play every Sunday, at the conclusion of their third game they would have played 3 games in 14 days. 

Our first 6 games were:

1: Thursday
2: Sunday
3: Saturday
4: Saturday
5: Thursday
6: Thursday

So our breaks between games were 10 days; 6 days; 7 days; 5 days; 7 days. This is an average of 7 days breaks in the first 6 rounds. 

What i will correct is that we have played 3 games in 12 days (not 13, which is what i and others have quoted). Making fatigue a more relevant factor but again, ill maintain that we have had sufficient recovery across the first 6 rounds. The 5 day break would have been a more relevant factor coming into the Adelaide game.  

 

 

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Giants not playing at their home stadium for 7 rounds in a row is madness

I'm heading along to the Pies Power game tommorrow, (I know, wish me luck) Not usually one to attend non MFC games but with a weekend bye, I'm gonna do it.. Torn against who I want to win however, one the one hand Collingwood hatred says, anytime Collingwood lose is a positive, on the other hand a Power win puts a gap between us and them... help me please

12 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Giants not playing at their home stadium for 7 rounds in a row is madness

that's because it's used for the easter show

hence why they have home games in canberra during this time 

Peter Ryan has it spot on. Saints were totally cooked last night.

Fatigue is a great way to market your spectacle of a product on a Thursday night with all the eyeballs watching. 

2 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Peter Ryan has it spot on. Saints were totally cooked last night.

He’s spot on with his appraisal of the fixture in general. The only thing he got wrong is his use of fair dinkum as one word. 😝

21 minutes ago, danielE288 said:

I'm heading along to the Pies Power game tommorrow, (I know, wish me luck) Not usually one to attend non MFC games but with a weekend bye, I'm gonna do it.. Torn against who I want to win however, one the one hand Collingwood hatred says, anytime Collingwood lose is a positive, on the other hand a Power win puts a gap between us and them... help me please

Hope your life insurance policy is paid-up and your Will is up-to-date.

This should help you decide who to go for…

NOT [censored] COLLINGWOOD!!!

11 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yep the Saints had 3 games in 11 days while we had 3 in 13.

For Melbourne supporters solely or mostly blaming our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane, then I think it’s more than fair that those same supporters absolutely excuse St Kilda’s performance last night.

Not taking a pot shot at you BBP, but your post highlights a real bug bear of mine. 

As even occasional dl posters would know, I'm of the view that the impact of fatigue (what ever its causes may be) on performance is routinely ignored.

And if it is ignored, any subsequent assessment or analysis is fundamentally flawed.

My bug bear is this perspective (not mine specifically, but in the general sense) is often misrepresented.

The suggestion or implication being that fatigue is used as an excuse and that other factors (eg coaching, tactics, flaws in method, strength of opponent etc etc) are ignored or given short shrift.

A related bug bear is the conflation of reasons for poor performance with excuses for poor performance. Saying fatigue was a factor in our loss to the lions is not making an excuse, it is suggesting a possible causal factor.

So, for example, there are a number of posters, me included, who have suggested fatgue was a factor in our performance against the lions.

But I have not read a single post that solely or mostly blamed our recent schedule for our loss to Brisbane. 

Personally I'm of the view it was a significant factor, but of course far from the only factor.

 I'm probably an outlier, but I also think it was the most significant factor - because pretty much any other factor is exacerbated by fatigue.

For example, in the simplest terms we lost because the lions were much harder at it than us, as evidenced by being smashed for cps, pressure and tackles. No argument there.

But logically, tackling, applying elite pressure and winning contested possessions is a real challeng if across the board players are fatgued.

On the saints performance I 100% think fatigue was a significant factor in, and one of the reasons for, their performance.

I would argue if someone doesn’t, then, to be completely frank, they do not understand AFL football circa 2024.

But is fatigue an excuse for their performance? No.

And in fact, if you accept fatigue was a factor in both ours and the saints performance, there is another data point to consider.

Playing a team at their level, the saints were completely and utterly woeful. Beaten in every quarter, never in the game, they were ultimately smashed by 10 goals and despite being one of the most defensive teams in the AFL conceded a crazy 124 points. Even factoring in the fatigue it was a shocking performance.

Coming of our 5 day break, we were able to beat crows on their home deck despite completely hitting the wall in the last quarter. Impressive.

We then play the lions, and whilst we had a seven day break, we were clearly feeling the impact of 4 games in 19 days and were obviously fatigued.

Like the saints, we also played a team at our level, one that was up and about and as evidenced by their numbers, not fatigued.

Despite that we kept one of the best offences to 82 points and only lost by 22 points.

Sure, we played poorly, but analysed through that lens, suddenly the performance does not look so bad.

Edited April 19, 20241 yr by binman

10 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Hope your life insurance policy is paid-up and your Will is up-to-date.

This should help you decide who to go for…

NOT [censored] COLLINGWOOD!!!

I've got all bases covered, obviously going incognito, so no fear of being singled out.

Power it is, NEVER TEAR US APART!